Re: ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 180 My: unrealistic

George <George@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Two issues. First "given reasonable H2O abundances". Define "reasonable
with regard to this statement".

That's not my paper. Ask the authors.

Secondly, the experiment is showing how
material is becoming more mafic with increasing pressure, not less mafic
with decreasing pressure.

So what?

Third, how is this evidence that "deep mantle"
material is upwelling beneath subduction zones?

Beneath the arc, at upduction zones. Because the earthquakes below the
arc do not belong to a slab, but to a column of rising material. And
that material is rich in water because it forms andesitic magmas. it
follows that it must rise from where water is present in the deep
mantle.


That is not a conclusive argument. Evaporites are also present at the
place of former epicontinental seas.

The Gulf of Mexico is not an epicontinental sea, and yet it has lots of
evaporites. The Baltic and the Mediterranean Seas are not epicontinental
seas and yet they are loaded with evaporites. Floppy, the presence of
evaporites is not a definitive argument that a sea is epicontinental.

You're the moron infering from what I wrote that evaporite would be
restricted to epicontinental seas.

You brought it up, floppy.

Moron can't read: "Evaporites are *also* present at the place of former
epicontinental seas."


Tethys and Panthalassa are assumed to be large because it is also
assumed that the globe hs a constant size.
Garbage in garbage out.

No, they are measured based on field data to have been large, in
Panthalassa's case, VERY large.

Bull***. You must make a postulate about the size of Earth to estimate
the width of paleooceans from field data.


list of ancient oceans that apparently, according to a non-geologist
(you)
never existed:

Liar. All of these oceans existed, but they were narrow.

Really? Where is your field data that backs up that claim?

Yawn, that is the same dataset. The estimates yield different results
because in Plate tectonics, it is assumed that Earth has a fixed radius,
whereas in auxotectonics, we know it was smaller and we actually can
predict where the different pieces of crust were sitting during the
evolution of the planet.

It has been demonstrated in Maxlow's thesis.

since EE claims that all of the continents were once together and made up
the sum total of the Earth's crust "prior to expansion", then these ancient
oceans shouldn't exist at all, and in fact, this has been the argument of
EEers for many years. I guess you didn't get the memo.

You're such a simple mind that you're very easily confused.
There were no Panthalassa size ocean, all modern basin were not open
yet, but there were narrow extension basins between cratons. Can't be
clearer than that.


--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
.

Quantcast